| Author |
Message |
    
Vviceroy
Citizen
Username: Vviceroy
Post Number: 2
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 12:17 am: |     |
Happened back on April 4th but it went unreported for several weeks. Could they have capitulated any faster?
We are really going to regret this one. Our village is what attracted many of us here in the first place and this monstrosity is going to loom over it....granted not as close that the transit garage would've been 10 years ago...but the idea is the same. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 3751
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 1:42 pm: | |
What town can you move to anywhere in the civilized world that doesn't have a tower in it or someplace close by; or for that matter isn't planning to build one in the not to distant future?
Viceroy, welcome to MOL. The cell towers have to go somewhere where they will provide the best service. It’s just another sign of the times!
FWIW, I’d rather have a cell tower every mile or so and better cell phone communications, than all those damn telephone poles every 100’ along our roads, in front of our homes, and throughout our communities; or worst yet go back to the days of outside pay phone booths and the like...
|
Analog01
Citizen
Username: Analog01
Post Number: 109
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 2:13 pm: | |
FINALLY - better cell coverage in Maplehood. Hopefully it will eradicate all of the dead spots in town.
Now they really need to build that garage. Parking is a nightmare.
|
Vviceroy
Citizen
Username: Vviceroy
Post Number: 3
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 4:58 pm: | |
AJC, thanks for the welcome. You ask what town doesn't have a looming cell tower over their village? Off the top of my head Chatham. Madison. If I got out more I could probably go on. ;-D. That's really the issue here. There are a lot of ways to skin a cat and provide cell service. Lower power solutions using existing buildings, pole top boxes, and smaller structures. While the TCA of 1996 was a gift to the cell industry in terms of overriding local control and zoning, there has developed a body of case law that does weigh the cell companies efforts to provide the least intrusive solution. For some reason, our zoning board has flown the white flag at the _most_ intrusive solution. If you allow 110 ft tower with provisions to grow upwards, on what basis can you deny additional towers? Seems to me the answer is none. For a town with 5-digit taxes and a school system that perpetually looks to cut programs, adding this fatal mar to the downtown's charm - what attracts many residents here - inflicts harm on the community (and yes property values - anyone remember what home sales were like here pre-1999) is anything but "arbitrary and capricious". |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 3753
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 6:55 pm: | |
Viceroy, you're welcome... You found one of the two best places to express your feelings on this or any local issues. The other would be to attend the township committee meetings.
I don't know about Chatham, maybe they already have good coverage. I have a cell tower on one of my properties and they're very expensive and only built where they're absolutely needed.
I'm not sure that the look'en in the loom'en at the tower will be much worst than look'en at 616 South Orange Avenue... Actually, I very much doubt the tower will even be visible in the village.
You're right, there are a lot of ways to skin a cat. Lower power solutions using existing buildings, pole top boxes, and smaller structures might be better solutions, however, we're a day late and a dollar short.
The zoning board functions at the pleasure of the township committee. The truth is an ordinance to regulate cell towers and the bed and breakfast industry should have been on the books at least a decade ago...
Can anyone think of any other ordinances that should be passed before the horse gets out of the barn?
|
extuscan
Citizen
Username: Extuscan
Post Number: 478
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 7:51 pm: | |
Parking... yeah... definately should convert the two CHS parking lots to a CHS/Commuter parking structure and build a new train station into it right there. Not much in the way of residential neighbors to complain. Getting all that commuter parking out of downtown would really help. Or it would hurt because there aren't a couple thousand people streaming through Maplewood center on thier way home buying stuff. I dunno, just an idea.
--John |
Vviceroy
Citizen
Username: Vviceroy
Post Number: 4
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 9:29 pm: | |
Thanks again, AJC. You are right about the day late and dollar short. From what I understand, the town didn't counter Verizon's "experts" in court with their own experts or even just some realtors relating stories about sellers backing out. I imagine there will be a few of those stories now f'sure. As for the "property values" issue, it's common sense that if you are looking at two homes with similar characteristics and one has a nearby looming cell tower, you don't need a Ph.D. in rocket science to know where the buyer is going. That to me is the larger loss, the dramatic decrease in the number of buyers, that homes near electromagnetic radiation experience. Unfortunately common sense doesn't prevail when you attempt to quantify these things, so it spins to suit the agenda of the spinner.
The health hazards in these things are real. It's like residing a few hundred feet from a constantly running microwave oven with its door open. The higher the tower, the larger the coverage area, the greater the electromagnetic radiation. Scientist have already run tested blood showing long term exposure to low level electromagnetic radiation can fracture DNA - you know this isn't good - Countries like New Zealand and Australia have already cut back from the US-designated levels of what is guesstimated as safe. ....And this will be how far from Maplewood Middle School?
As for where you can see this thing, I think you will be in for a shock. You'll see it from Ridgewood Rd., from Valley St., and I anticipate from Rickleton Square. And just wait until October when the foliage disappears. In short this will change the feel of our village forever.
FWIW, the New York Times today had an article on Mendham's losing battle with Verizon's cell tower...the implication being if the well-to-do folks in Mendham can lose to this new corporate eminent domain, the rest of us are in a heap of trouble.
|
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 3755
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 10:16 pm: | |
Interesting John, very interesting...
I'm not sure about another station stop, but I agree we need to keep the commuters in town as best we can. However, having "ALL" the shuttle buses make their first and last stops at a new parking structure along the tracks at CHS is worth looking into.
I would then be in favor of eliminating all commuter parking on the Westside of the tracks along Maplewood Avenue, and also all along Dunnell Road on the Eastside of the tracks. The commuters could still keep all the streets at right angles like Baker, Oakview, and Oakland, etc. This would then free up more than enough of additional shopper parking spaces.
I'm sure we would also want to add at least one or two buses to keep shuttling back and forth on Maplewood Avenue between the station and the parking garage during high volume commuter times. The majority of all commuters usually don't stop to shop when coming or going to work.
Personally being involved all these years with the Maplewood Concierge and the Cafe at the train station, plus this past year since my wife moved her salon to the west side of the station, I've found most commuters beat it out of town as fast as they can anyway. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 3756
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, May 1, 2005 - 11:53 pm: | |
Viceroy, I didn't know all this so thank you for the information. I'm sure if you keep forwarding it to our local, county, and state politicians, one of them will sooner or later pick up the fight with you...
BTW, do you have any information on electromagnetic radiation for the actual cell phone? I just got off a two-hour cell phone conversation with my attorney over my own zoning case tomorrow night.
If anything happens to me because of this, I’ll have to sue them again... ;-)
|
sullymw
Citizen
Username: Sullymw
Post Number: 548
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 2, 2005 - 9:04 am: | |
It's still going on the golf course? |
Vviceroy
Citizen
Username: Vviceroy
Post Number: 5
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 2, 2005 - 9:41 am: | |
sullymw, yes, smack dab on the golf course. It will start at 110 feet but the monopole is built to accommodate additions and will most likely climb to 140-150 feet as other cellular providers look to join. In addition, as growth in cellular continues, don't be surprised if a second or third tower goes up. After all if the court finds zoning issues arbitrary and capricious on the first tower, it's hard to see where the town can stop new ones.
What amazes me is the relative news blackout on all this. Maplewood citizens are in for a rude awakening. |
sullymw
Citizen
Username: Sullymw
Post Number: 551
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 2, 2005 - 9:45 am: | |
thanks...I think it's sad that a better tech/esthetic solution cannot be found |
Vviceroy
Citizen
Username: Vviceroy
Post Number: 6
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 2, 2005 - 9:50 am: | |
ajc, the politicians we probably need to work with are the national ones. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 needs to be amended to give a better balance between the needs of the telecom industry in providing coverage for customers and the need of towns to control zoning and provide a safe and pleasant living environment for residents. There's no reason that Maplewood's "gap" in cell coverage couldn't be filled with an antenna array using pole boxes and tops of existing buildings. It's a more complicated solution, and it may cost moderately more, but this is dwarfed imho by the aesthetic and economic damage this eyesore is going to inflict on village merchants and local residents. |
Vviceroy
Citizen
Username: Vviceroy
Post Number: 7
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Monday, May 2, 2005 - 10:03 am: | |
sullymw, I couldn't agree more. Your issue is my issue. A better tech/aesthetic could be found but these days Orwellian corporate nationalism trumps local control. It doesn't have to be this way. |
jet
Citizen
Username: Jet
Post Number: 820
Registered: 7-2001
| | Posted on Monday, May 2, 2005 - 1:44 pm: | |
Vviceroy thanks for the info & welcome to MOL. |
Vviceroy
Citizen
Username: Vviceroy
Post Number: 8
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - 9:22 am: | |
Thanks, Jet, for your welcome. I only wish I had better news to bear on the cell tower issue. BTW I have been doing some research on the internet and, while the horse is out of the barn, the town now should at least better prepare itself with more comprehensive zoning (including minimum space between towers and residences & schools, and more thorough documentation showing "least intrusive" solution) for the next wave of cell towers that will undoubtedly come. |
Vviceroy
Citizen
Username: Vviceroy
Post Number: 9
Registered: 4-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, May 4, 2005 - 9:42 am: | |
ajc, the effects on humans of long term low level electromagnetic radiation emitting from a cell phone is an health issue that may not have clarity for another decade or two. Common sense tells you that if the signal has enough electromagnetic radiation to reach a cell tower a mile or two away that your skull is receiving a bigger dose. Now it may be a 1/1000th of what a microwave oven puts out, but a microwave oven's timeframe is minutes, not years. I'm like the rest of the world and use a cell phone ...but I tend to limit my cell use to a few minutes at a given time - saving the longer conversations for the landlines. Perhaps I'm overcautious but I'd rather err on the side of safety where the results aren't known. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 3767
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 1:12 am: | |
Thanks for staying on top of this issue. I for one will follow your lead and also spend less time on my cell phone... |
Lucky13
Citizen
Username: Lucky13
Post Number: 330
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 7:55 am: | |
nothing will happen to any of the train stations from maplewood thru short hills unless it happens at once- parking is not the issue- a low profile parking garage would not accomodate more cars than the hodgepodge downtown now does. you have to go up like 4 levels to get the economy, and that will never fly. any changes would likely be about raising the platforms. |
ajc
Citizen
Username: Ajc
Post Number: 3771
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, May 5, 2005 - 9:15 am: | |
"...parking is not the issue - "
What do you mean? I hear what you're saying won't work, but do you have any suggestions what will work? |
olaf
Citizen
Username: Olaf
Post Number: 18
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 1:42 am: | |
How do I find out which TC members have consistently oposed the cell tower, even after the Zoning Board gave up the fight? This would be usefull information in upcoming elections. |
Joan
Supporter
Username: Joancrystal
Post Number: 5626
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, May 22, 2005 - 8:04 am: | |
Olaf:
Ask them! |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page